Delhi District Court
Waseem vs Raju on 29 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.: 471/2021
FIR no. 2352/2018
PS Indirapuram, Ghaziabad
U/s 279/338/427 IPC
CNR No.: DLSE01-006457-2021
Waseem Vs. Raju & Ors.
Waseem
S/o Anwar
R/o H. No. 411, Peer Bauddin Hapur
Distt. Hapur, Uttar Pradesh.
Present address: C-155, Alpha 1st Greater
Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Raju
S/o Sh. Premraj
R/o H. No. 380, Gali no.6,
Jwala Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi.
.....R-1/ Driver
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 1 of 38
2. Gajadar Kumar
S/o Parsadilal
R/o H. NO. 335 B, Nyay Khand-1,
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, New Delhi.
.....R-2/ Owner
3. Tata AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.
721, 7th Floor, DLF Tower B
Jamia Nagar, Sought Delhi.
....R-3/ Insurance Co.
Date of accident : 04.09.2018
Date of filing of petition : 07.09.2021
Date of Decision : 29.01.2025
AWARD
1. This is a claim petition filed under Section 166 and 140
M.V. Act on 07.09.2021 by Sh. Waseem (hereinafter called the
claimant/ injured) on account of injuries suffered by him in a
Road Traffic Accident (RTA) with vehicle (Car) bearing Reg. No.
UP 14AZ 6386 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle), driven
by Sh. Raju (hereinafter called R-1/ driver), owned by Sh.
Gajadar Kumar (hereinafter called R-2/ Owner), & insured with
M/s Tata AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as
Insurance Company).
BRIEF FACTS AS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION:
2. On 04.09.2018 at about 9:00 PM, the injured, Waseem,
was riding as a pillion on a scooty (bearing Registration number
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 2 of 38
UP 37J 6799) driven by Irshad. While traveling towards the
village of Makanpur, when they reached on Kala Patthar Road,
alleged offending vehicle suddenly turned onto the road and
collided with their scooty. As a result, the scooty was damaged,
and Waseem sustained serious injuries. FIR was subsequently
registered, and investigation was initiated. R-1 / driver of the
offending vehicle has been charge sheeted under the relevant
provisions of law.
3. It is stated that injured was 21 years old at the time of
accident and used to make his living as fruit seller at
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. A
compensation amount of Rs.24 Lakhs @ 12% interest per annum
on account of injuries sustained by claimant has been sought.
Proceedings:
4. Notice of the claim petition was issued to the respondents.
In response, counsel for Respondent No.1 appeared on
27.05.2025. However, no further appearances were made on
behalf of R-1 thereafter. Respondent No.2 failed to appear
despite being served through substituted means. Consequently,
both R-1 and R-2 were proceeded against ex parte as per the
order dated 17.08.2023.
5. Reply, however, filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3
wherein it is asserted that the claim petition is not maintainable
due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is further contended that
the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the rider of
the scooty involved. Additionally, it is alleged that the FIR was
lodged after an unexplained delay of two days. Other general
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 3 of 38
defenses have also been raised.
Issues:
6. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed order dated 17.08.2023:
i)Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on
04.09.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no.
UP 14AZ 6386 driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3?
OPP.
ii). Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what
extent and from whom?OPP
iii). Relief.
Disability Assessment:
7. Disability Assessment Report dated 09.08.2023 was
received with 08% permanent physical impairment in relation to
right lower limb.
Evidence:
8. Matter was then listed for Petitioner's Evidence. PW-1
Waseem tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He
relied upon following documents:
Mark A- FIR dated 06.09.2018
Mark B- Site plan
Mark C- Charge Sheet
Mark D- MLC dated 04.09.2018
Ex.PW1/1- Medical bills and treatment records
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 4 of 38
Ex.PW1/2- Copy of Aadhar Card
Ex.PW1/3- Copy of PAN Card.
PW-1 was further cross examined by counsel for Insurance
Company.
9. PW-2 Sh. Sovinder Singh was examined as summoned
witness. He brought summoned record i.e. medical bills and
treatment records of injured Waseem Ex.PW2/1 (colly). He was
also cross examined by counsel for Insurance Company.
10. Petitioner's Evidence was closed upon request of counsel
for claimant. No evidence was led by any of the respondents.
Matter was thereafter listed for final arguments.
Arguments:
11. Final Arguments were addressed by the contesting
counsels. The counsel for the claimant contended that the injured
was aged about 21 years at the time of the accident and was
earning Rs. 20,000 per month as a fruit seller. It was further
argued that the injured suffered permanent impairment due to
severe injuries caused by the rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle. Consequently, the counsel prayed for
compensation to be awarded in favor of the claimant in
accordance with the applicable legal provisions. Written
Submissions also filed on behalf of claimant side along with
Financial Statement. Counsel for claimant also relied upon
following judgments:
a) Laxmi Narain Vs. Trilochan Singh & Ors. FAO no. 289/99
b) Rudra Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 5 of 38
Civil Appeal No. 2695/2011.
c) Aabid Khan Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (2024) 4 SCR 264
d) Erudhya Priya Vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd Civil Appeal
no. 2811-2812 of 2020
e) Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 8981 of 2010
12. None for appeared on behalf of R-1 & 2 to address their
arguments.
13. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company argued that the
accident occurred on account of negligence of the petitioner
himself admitting that offending vehicle was validly insured on
the date of accident. It is also argued that FIR in the present case
was lodged after an unexplained delay of 2 days. It is also argued
that claimant has not filed any proof of his earnings. She has also
argued that only 50% of the permanent disability assessed should
be taken as disability of the whole body which comes out to be
merely, 4%, which is negligible and cannot result in any
functional disability.
14. On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and
arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
i)Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on
04.09.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no.
UP 14AZ 6386 driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3?
OPP.
15. What is required to be ascertained is whether rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle was responsible for
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 6 of 38
sustaining injury by injured.
16. PW-1 injured person affirmed in his affidavit that the
offending vehicle dashed into the scooty at Kala Patthar Road
when it had taken a turn while the scooty was being driven at a
slow speed on the correct side of the road. He also affirmed that
the scooty was being driven by Irshad while he was sitting as
pillion on the said scooty. In cross examination by counsel for
insurance company, he stated that they were travelling from Niti
Khand and were going straight on NH -24 towards Makanpur
Village when the accident happened. He asserted that Irshad,
driver of the scooty had valid DL at the time of accident. He
stated that the offending vehicle was behind their scooty, also
plying towards the same side. He also stated that there is a
divider between the incoming and outgoing traffic on each side
of the road at NH 24 and two vehicles can ply on each side of the
road. He also stated that scooty was being plied on the left lane
of the road and the offending vehicle was also in the same lane
behind the scooty and collided with it from its front left side on
the rear side of the scooty. He stated that his statement was
recorded by the police two days after the accident. He declined
the suggestion that accident took place due to negligence of
Irshad. He stated that he was not in a position to confirm whether
the offending vehicle was to go straight or was to take a turn. He
declined the suggestion that the accident did not take place on
account of rash and negligent driving of R-1 driven by R-1. He
also confirmed that the site plan was not prepared at his instance.
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 7 of 38
The accident, as per the record happened on 04.09.2018 in
the late evening whereas the complaint was made by Irshad on
05.09.2018 at about 09.00 PM, on the basis of which FIR was
registered on 06.09.2018. The complaint made by Irshad who
was the prime witness of the matter, contained the relevant and
crucial details about the accident including the identification /
registration and make of the offending vehicle. Injured himself
has been examined as a witness and has been extensively cross
examined on the mode and manner of the accident. There is no
reason to doubt his affirmation that the accidental scooty was
being driven within speed limits on the correct side of the road.
He has vividly explained as to how the offending car being plied
behind the scooty ended up ramming into the scooty ahead
causing damage to the scooty as well as injuries to the scooty
riders. Any factual inconsistencies could not be elicited so as to
put his affirmation in doubt. There is no contrary evidence led on
behalf of any of the respondents to question the case set up on
behalf of claimants. R-1 always had an opportunity to contest the
matter, however, not even a feeble attempt has been made to
barely deny the allegations made in the petition.
17. As such, in view of the above analysis of material on
record, evidence proved on record, charge-sheet against R-1, it is
held that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving
of the offending vehicle and the issue No.1 is decided
accordingly, in favour of the petitioner.
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 8 of 38
ISSUE NO. 2
"Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
OPP"
"The determination of quantum must be liberal, not
niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free
country in generous scales"
{as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Concord of India Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Nirmala Devi (1979 )4SCC 365}
18. Sec. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold an
inquiry into the claim to determine the compensation payable and
pass an award. Relevant portion of Section 168 MV Act is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to
the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an
opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as
the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the
provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be
paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify
the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver
of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them,
as the case may be: Provided that where such application makes
a claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of the
death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and
any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise)
for compensation in respect of such death or permanent
disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter X.
.
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 9 of 38
.
.
19. “….Money cannot renew a physical frame that has been
battered.” {as observed in the case of H. West and Son Limited
Vs. Shephard 1958 -65 ACJ 504 (HL, England)}. It recognizes
that the physical damage caused once cannot be fully undone.
Something which remains as an indelible permanent signs of an
unfortunate incident cannot be balanced merely by paying some
monetary compensation. The process of damage and the ugly
scars left on physical body and mental self, navigating through
the entire process post accident and the unintended but
compulsory turns that it brings in the course of life is indeed
painful and traumatic. It is also required to be underlined that the
damage is not restricted to the tangible injuries visible on the
body of the injured rather catapults the lives of his family
members also.
20. The assessment or grant of compensation is a small
attempt to render assistance to the injured to navigate through the
hairpin unanticipated sudden and traumatic turn in order to bring
some elbow space for him to move towards stability and
normalcy to the extent possible. The underlying principle
remains thus to make good the damage so far as possible as
equivalent in money.
21. Section 168 MV Act puts an obligation over Tribunal to
assess ‘just’ compensation with the object of putting the sufferer
in the same position as nearly as possible as he would have been
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 10 of 38
if he had not sustained the wrong. It is worthwhile to reproduce
certain observations made by Karnataka High Court in the case
of K. Narasimha Murthy v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd ILR 2004
KAR 2471 as referred and relied in the case of Rekha Jain Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited Civil Appeal No. 5370-
5372 of 2013 which enumerates the milestones to be kept in
mind by the Tribunal in an endevour to assess just compensation,
at the same time acknowledging that any amount of money
cannot compensate fully an injured man or completely renew a
shattered human physical frame as under:
“16. The Courts and Tribunals, in bodily injury cases, while
assessing compensation, should take into account all relevant
circumstances, evidence, legal principles governing quantification of
compensation. Further, they have to approach the issue of awarding
compensation on the larger perspectives of justice, equity and good
conscience and eschew technicalities in the decision-making. There
should be realisation on the part of the Tribunals and Courts that the
possession of one’s own body is the first and most valuable of all
human rights, and that all possessions and ownership are extensions
of this primary right, while awarding compensation for bodily
injuries. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles
a claimant to damages. The amount of damages varies according to
gravity of injuries.”
22. It is also settled that the monetary assessment is a
methodology known to law as social and legal security to a
victim even though the nature of injuries and the individual
ramifications might vary in different cases, therefore, it is
understandable that one remedy cannot heal all. Further, the loss
is in the nature of deprivation and it is unlike a personal asset
with a price tag which can be simply awarded and therefore,
complete accuracy in making such assessment is not humanly
possible. The endevour is thus to make an assessment as best and
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 11 of 38
as fair as possible under the given circumstance. The uncertainty
of bringing justness to an assessment has been recognized, still
holding that substantial damages must be awarded. The
observations made by Lord Halsbury in the case of Mediana In re
1900 AC 113 (HL) give valuable insights into the aspect and
reproduced as under:
“……Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is
one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay
down any principle upon which you can give damages;
nevertheless it is remitted to the jury or those who stand in
place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money
shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most
familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure
pain and suffering in money counted? Nobody can suggest
that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what
is the exact amount of money which would represent such
a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has
undergone by reason of an accident……. But nevertheless
the law recognises that as a topic upon which damages may
be given”
23. The uncertainty involved has also been recognized by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rekha Jain (supra)
where observations of Lord Blacburn in the case of Livingstone
Vs. Rawyards Coal Company (1880) 5 APP CAS 25 were
referred as under:
“…….where any injury is to be compensated by damages,
in settling the sum of money to be given… you should as
nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will put
the party who has been injured.. in the same position as he
would have been if he had not sustained the wrong….”
24. It is further observed by their Lordship in the case of
Rekha Jain (supra) as follows:
“41…..Besides, the Court is well advised to remember that
the measures of damages in all these cases ‘should be such
as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amplyMACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 12 of 38
atoned for his misadventure’. The observation of Lord
Devlin that the proper approach to the problem or to adopt
a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a
fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to ‘hold up
his head among his neighbours and say with their approval
that he has done the fair thing’ is quite opposite to be kept
in mind by the Court in assessing compensation in personal
injury cases.”
25. It is also settled that the compensation is not granted only
for the physical injury but for the entire loss which results from
the injury in an endevour to place the victim in a position as close
as possible as prior to the accident (support drawn from National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors (2017) 16
SCC 680 also in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343). It
is also settled as held in catena of judgments that the Motor
Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the object of
the Tribunal ought to be to assist the injured persons, (support
drawn from Helen C Rebello (Mrs) & Ors. v. Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation and Anr (1999) 1 SCC 90).
26. It is settled that an injured is required to be compensated
for his inability to lead full life, his inability to enjoy those
natural amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the
injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or
could have earned (support drawn from C. K. Subramonia Iyer
vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair – AIR 1970 SC 376 as further referred
and relied in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) and then in a recent
pronouncement of Sidram Vs Divisonal Manager United India
Insurance Company & Anr SLP (Civil) No.19277 of 2018).
27. What is required of the Tribunal is to attempt objective
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 13 of 38
assessment of damages as nearly as possible without fanciful or
whimsical speculation even though, some conjecture specially in
reference of the nature of disability and it consequence would be
inevitable. {support drawn from Raj Kumar (supra) as referred
and relied in Sidram (supra)}.
28. Observing that a measure of damages cannot be arrived with
precise mathematical calculations and that much depends upon
peculiar facts and circumstances of any matter, Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India elaborated upon the expression “which appears to
it to be just” in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC v.
Mahadeva Shetty and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197.
29. The observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance
Company Limited (2012) 12 SCC 274 provide valuable insights
into the factors to be weighed by the Tribunal for determination
of quantum of compensation. The relevant extract of which is
reproduced as under:
“10. It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority, while
determining the quantum of compensation, has to keep in view the
sufferings of the injured person which would include his inability to
lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities which he
would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to earn as much
as he used to earn or could have earned. Hence, while computing
compensation the approach of the Tribunal or a court has to be broad-
based. Needless to say, it would involve some guesswork as there
cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to
determine the quantum of compensation. In determination of
compensation the fundamental criterion of “just compensation”
should be inhered.”
30. The compensation has been broadly delineated as pecuniary
and non pecuniary in the case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 14 of 38
Control India Pvt Ltd. 1995 AIR 755, it is worthwhile to
reproduce certain observations made therein:
“9….while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a
victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed
separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually
incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of
money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are
incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In
order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may
include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical
attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial;
(iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are
concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and
physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely
to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the
loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of
matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able
to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of
life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the
person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship,
discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in
life.”
31. The issue of determination of compensation in a personal
injury matter was extensively deliberated by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) Relevant extract
of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder for further
discussion:
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured
would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 15 of 38
disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal
longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be
awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in
serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical
evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that
compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)
(b),
(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability, future medical expenses,
loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and
loss of expectation of life.
7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under
Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve
reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the
evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses–
Item (iii)–depends upon specific medical evidence regarding
need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-
pecuniary damages–Items (iv), (v) and (vi)–involves
determination of lump sum amounts with reference to
circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability
suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of
the claimant. Decisions of this Court and the High Courts contain
necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary.
What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss
of future earnings on account of permanent disability–Item (ii)
(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES
Damages under pecuniary heads primarily involves
reimbursement of actual amount spent on account of injury
suffered in an accident to undo the monetary loss, suffered by the
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 16 of 38
claimant, as ascertainable from the evidence on record. Given
hereunder are various heads under which compensation for
pecuniary damages is assessed:
(i) Expenditure on Medical Treatment: Immediately after the
accident, Injured was admitted to Avantika Hospital,
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad and was treated as an inpatient for 3
days and subsequently remained on medical treatment for about 1
year. He sustained 8% permanent physical impairment in relation
to his right lower limb. He deposed that he spent Rs. 2 lakhs on
his treatment. He has filed summary of medical bills totalling Rs.
47,894/-. Claimant also summoned PW2 who placed on record
attested medical bills and treatment records as Ex.PW2/1 (colly).
He stated that the payment of medical bills was done in cash.
Sundry / miscellaneous expenses cannot be ruled out during the
admission in the hospital and subsequently also. Accordingly,
injured is awarded 52,894/- (Rs.47,894/- + Rs. 5,000/-) towards
expenditure on medical treatment.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance: Claimant has deposed that he
has spent more than Rs. 25,000/- on expenses. However, apart
from medical bills, any other bills related to conveyance/
transportation has not been filed. It is evident that the deceased
suffered grievous injuries with disability in his lower limb and
that is why he was not in a state of free unrestricted mobility that
he could undertake hospital visits on his own without appropriate
vehicular arrangements. The family members of the injured
would also have to necessarily make hospital visits to attend the
injured during hospitalization/ OPD visits. As such, an amount of
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 17 of 38
Rs. 20,000/- is awarded towards the head of conveyance.
(iii) Expenditure on Special Diet: Claimant has deposed that he
has spent more than Rs. 50,000/- on his special diet. However,
apart from medical bills, any other bills related to special diet
have not been filed. However, considering the nature of injuries,
an amount of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded to injured towards
expenditure on special diet.
(iv) Expenditure for attendant: PW-1 deposed that he was unable
to do any work during one year period of recovery and therefore
had to be dependent upon a formal attendant or his family
members attending to him. Considering the nature of injuries
sustained by injured, it cannot be stated that he was on his own
and did not need any assistance. An amount of Rs. 20,000/- is
thus awarded awarded towards expenditure for attendant charges.
v.(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment: PW-1
deposed that he was working as fruit seller in Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. However, any
document pertaining to his income or employment has not been
filed and he so admitted this in his cross examination. He has
also not filed any educational qualification document. As per his
Aadhar Card (Ex.PW1/2) he was resident of Hapur, Uttar
Pradesh. As such minimum wages for an unskilled worker
applicable at the time of accident in Uttar Pradesh is accepted to
be his monthly earning which was 7,613/-.
v(b) Further, as per Discharge Summary Ex.PW1/5 (colly)
mentions that the injured was discharged after 3 days of
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 18 of 38
hospitalization on 06.09.2018. During cross examination, he
stated that he visited the doctor regularly for a period of 3 months
after the accident and did not visit any doctor post that. There are
no documents to support any medical consultation or any
prescription advising any bed rest for months post accident. It
can thus be inferred that the injured would not have been in a
position to resume his work to earn living for a period of 3
months post accident.
Loss of earning during period of treatment is thus calculated to
be Rs. 7,613/- x 3 = Rs.22,839/-
(vi) Loss of future earning: It is settled that a person is
required to be compensated not just for the physical injury but
also for the loss he has suffered as well as the loss which he
might entail for the rest of his life on account of those injuries
which he sustained in the accident. This necessarily means that
he is required to be compensated for his inability to lead a full
life, his inability to enjoy normal amenities, which he would have
enjoyed but for the injury, his inability to earn as much as he
used to earn or could have earned. (Support drawn from the
judgment titled as C. K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair
(1969) 3 SCC 64.
(vii) Disability Assessment Report dated 09.08.2023 was
received with 08% permanent physical impairment in relation to
right lower limb.
(viii) Before proceeding further, it is important to understand as
to what disability means and also types thereof. This aspect has
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 19 of 38
been delved into by Hon’ble SC in Raj Kumar (supra):
“8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform
an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being.
Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of
use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the
period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the
maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to
remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability
refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on
account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the
period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be
either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a
person’s inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions
that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to
perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful
activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person’s inability to
perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result
of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from
motor accident injuries, are of a much wider range when
compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“the Disabilities Act”,
for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i)
of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a
motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose
of claiming compensation.”
(ix) The term ‘disability’ means the decrements to the
functional efficacy of body of injured whereas ‘functioning’
encompass all the body functions and activities for an
independent life. Functional disability is to determine the extent
of loss or extent of restrictive functionality considering the nature
of activities required to be necessarily performed in efficient
discharge of duties and the limb effected. This computes the
extent of adverse effect of physical disability upon the functional
efficacy of an injured person, in turn adversely impacting his
earning capacity. The process entails understanding and
enumerating the skill set required for performing specific
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 20 of 38
activities. To sum up, functional disability basically measures the
extent of ability having been compromised to carry out basic
everyday tasks or even more complex tasks required for and
independent living. The limitations may occur on account of
disability in the personal sphere, in the social sphere and in the
occupational sphere. In the personal sphere it may encompass the
daily activities of a person, his body function and his
involvement in basis life situations. At the societal level, it could
mean difficulty in involvement and participation in social and
community activities interfering the interpersonal interaction and
relationship adversely impacting the civic life. When disability
restricts the vocation or employment avenues to make earning for
his living, it falls in the category of disability in the occupational
sphere. The disability might occur on account of age or any
illness and in the case at hand by way of an accident. A person
living a normal life in particular set of circumstance and making
his living by engaging in any work has suffered disability which
might impead his daily life activities, both on a personal and
social scale and might also impact his ability to continue earning
as much as before and his future employment avenues.
(x) What is thus required to be assessed is the effect and
impact of disability upon the working efficiency of injured and
whether it would adversely impact his earning capabilities in
future. It is settled that the Tribunal should not mechanically
apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of
economic loss or loss of earning capacity.
(xi) Hon’ble SC laid down certain guidelines for the Tribunal
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 21 of 38
to be able to arrive at an objective figure to quantify the loss for
the purpose of computing the compensation in the judgment of
Raj Kumar (supra). Relevant extracts of this judgment for the
purpose of further discussion are reproduced hereunder:
“Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent
disability
9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the
doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not,
with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate
states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an
extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45%
permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent
of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of
a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot
be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If
there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80%
permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent
of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140%
(that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have
suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof
expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to
the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result
of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of
loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact
of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The
Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of
permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of
earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of
economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity,
arising from a permanent disability will be different from the
percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly
assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of
permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of
earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced
show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45%
loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the
extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent
(percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either
too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 22 of 38
the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured;
and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a
percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of
money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the
standard multiplier method used to determine loss of
dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on
appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find
that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the
permanent disability, is approximately the same as the
percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the
Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of
compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in
Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010)
10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298]
and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10
SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is
any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent
disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and
decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent
total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with
reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such
disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire
body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the
person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent
disability then there is no question of proceeding further and
determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the
Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it
will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal
ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the
claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine
whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect
his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the
actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to
first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite
of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of
the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding
compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The
second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of
work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 23 of 38
out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any
kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent
disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities
and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he
was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous
activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser
scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can
continue to earn his livelihood.
.
.
.
.
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from
injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to
the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the
percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently,
the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as
the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few
cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence,
concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is
the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who
examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his
permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the
extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity
is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal
with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons,
depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job,
age, education and other factors.”
(xii) Further in the case of “Mohan Soni v Ram Avtar Tomar &
Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC), the question at hand was deliberated
and following observations as relevant in the context were made:
“In the context of loss of future earning, any physical
disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with
reference to the nature of work being performed by theMACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 24 of 38
person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and
once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or
loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take
the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work
himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the
puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means of
transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country.
The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or
the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road
insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of
a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the
loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg
(or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound
to have very traumatic effects on one’s personal, family or
social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working
in the office would not interfere with his work/earning
capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal
farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-puller.
(xiii) The question of assessment of impact of disability on the
earning capacity has been dealt in several cases but it is
understood that each case has to be evaluated on its contextual
dynamics established by way of evidence at hand. It brings us to
a question whether extent of permanent disability as medically
determined can simply be taken to be the extent of functional
disability and hence, the loss of earning capacity. It has been held
in various pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
and Hon’ble High Court that equating the two as a criteria would
result in an inobjective and absurd compensation. There however,
might be certain cases where the two would correspond to each
other but it cannot be mechanically applied rather requires
evaluation of applicable factors independently in each case to
reach at a fair quantification of loss of earning capacity.
(xiv) In the present case, the injured asserted himself to be a
vegetable vendor in Indirapuram. In Additional Written
Arguments filed by counsel for claimant, it is mentioned that theMACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 25 of 38
petitioner is no longer able to drive the motorcycle because of
disability and has to be dependent upon others even for basic
travel. Further, he is no longer able to be a mobile fruit vendor
moving from one sector to another to enhance his economic
productivity. Per contra, counsel for insurance company disputed
the same arguing that there cannot be any functional disability
for a mere 4% of disability of the whole body. The arguments set
out by counsel for petitioner cannot be ignored considering the
nature of work that the injured was performing to make his
living. It is necessary trait of his avocation that he would be
required to rush to the market to procure fruits and then to reach
out to customer to sell those fruits and would require to load and
unload fruit crates on his cart also in a daily routine and now that
mobility and flexibility on account of the disability suffered in
his right lower limb would evidently be impeded. Therefore, it
cannot be stated that his earning capacity or efficiency would not
be adversely affected on account of disability. Given the
substantial impact on his ability to undertake field-oriented work,
his functional disability in respect of his earning capacity is
assessed as 8%.
(xv) Future Prospect: It is settled that future prospect (as laid
down in the well considered judgment of National Insurance
Company Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680) shall be payable,
not only in fatal cases but also in the case of permanent disability.
(Support drawn from Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar & Ors.,
AIR 2020 SC 4424).
(xvi) PW-1 has filed his Aadhar Card on record as per which his
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 26 of 38
date of birth is 01.01.1997, therefore, his age as on the date of
accident was about 21 years and 8. Since the injured was below
the age of 40 years (at the time of accident) and was employed on
a fixed salary, thus as laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi
(Supra), the percentage towards future prospect is taken to be @
40 % upon application of category of ”self-employed or on a
fixed salary”.
(xvii) Multiplier: The multiplier method was coined by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma v Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2008,
decided on 15.04.2009 to ascertain the future loss of income in
relation to the age of the deceased, in order to bring about the
uniformity and consistency in determination of compensation
payable in fatal and serious injuries matters. Relevant
observations with respect to the multiplier method in the
abovementioned case read as under:
“The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of
dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of
the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier.
The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased
(or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as
to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a
stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual
interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that
ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the
period for which the dependency is expected to last.”
(xviii) The standard multiplier method was directed to be
applied not only to ascertain the loss of dependancy in fatal
accident case but also to determine future loss of earning in
serious disability matters as well {as laid in the case of Raj
Kumar (supra)}. In a recent Judgment of Pappu Dev Yadav
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 27 of 38
(supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon and
reiterated the principles laid in various judgments passed by it in
the case of Sr. Antony @ Antony Swamy v Managing Director
KSRTC, Civil Appeal No. 2551 of 2018 and held that
stereotypical or myopic approach must be avoided and pragmatic
reality of life must be taken into account to determine the impact
of extent of disability upon the income generating capacity of
victim.
(xix) The income of the injured per annum as determined upon
appreciation of evidence, thus, forms the multiplicand. A table of
multiplier with reference to the age was laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma (supra); as per
which, the appropriate multiplier, applicable in this case would
be 18 (for age group between upto 25 years).
(xx) In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation
under future loss of income in the present case is as under:
(a) Annual income (Rs. 7,613/- x 12) = Rs.91,356/-
(b) Future prospect (40% of Rs 91,356/-) = Rs. 36,542/-
__________________
(c) Total = Rs.1,27,898/-
(d) Thus, Multiplicand = Rs.1,27,898/-
(e) Hence, the ‘Total Loss of Future Income’ shall be :-
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 28 of 38
Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand X Multiplier).
08% (Rs.1,27,898/-X 18) = Rs. 1,84,173/-
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
(xxi) Injured is entitled to both, pecuniary as well as non-
pecuniary damages. As the name suggests pecuniary damages are
designed to make good the pecuniary loss which can be
ascertained in terms of money whereas non pecuniary damages
are general damages to compensate the injured for mental and
physical shock, pain, suffering, loss of expectation of life,
inconvenience, hardship, frustration, stress, dejectment and
unhappiness suffered by him on account of injuries sustained in
the accident. It takes into account all the aspects of a normal life
which deluded injured on account of accident. Given the nature
of heads covered, it is bound to involve guess work on the part of
Tribunal involving some hypothetical consideration as well,
primarily considering the special circumstances of the injured
and the effect of those upon his future life.
(xxii) Regarding non-pecuniary loss, following was stated in
Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4 th Edition, Vol. 12 (page 446):
“Non-pecuniary loss: the pattern: Damages awarded for pain and
suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is
taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being
interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus
there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a
provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries,
and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury
will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff,
including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, isMACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 29 of 38
reflected in the actual amount of the award.
(As also referred in the case of Sidram…………………)
7. In Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, (1999)
6 SCC 667, the Supreme Court held that the object of an award of
damages is to give the plaintiff compensation for damage, loss or
injury he has suffered. The Court further held that the elements of
damage recognized by law are divisible into two main groups:
pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss. While the pecuniary loss is
capable of being arithmetically worked out, the non- pecuniary loss
is not so calculable. Non-pecuniary loss is compensated in terms of
money, not as a substitute or replacement for other money, but as a
substitute, what McGregor says, is generally more important than
money: it is the best that a court can do.
8. In Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274, the Supreme
Court held that if a collection of cases on the quantum of damages is
to be useful, it must necessarily be classified in such a way that
comparable cases can be grouped together. No doubt, no two cases
are alike but still, it is possible to make a broad classification which
enables one to bring comparable awards together. Inflation should be
taken into account while calculating damages.
(referred and relied in the case of A. Rupin Manohar Through Sh.
S. Anandha vs Mohd. Ansari & Ors. 605/2015 passed by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court)
(xxiii) To sum up, compensation under non-pecuniary
heads involves objective assessment of the damages in a bid to
undo the loss, the injured would incur on account of his inability
to a normal life and earn as much as he would, but for the injuries
sustained. The whole idea behind assessment for damages for
compensation is to put the claimant in the same position in so far
as money can. The very nature of these damages, compulsorily
involves some guesswork and hypothetical considerations,
however, efforts should be made to adjudicate these on the basis
of objective parameters rather than guided by subjective
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 30 of 38
sympathy. The nature and severity of injury, the age, nature of
disability are some of those parameters. Given hereunder are
various heads under which compensation for non-pecuniary loss
(general damages) is assessed:
(xxiv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma on account of
injuries: The mental and physical loss cannot always be
arithmetically computed in terms of money. These form the
intangible losses suffered by injured for no fault of his. Although
any form of human suffering cannot be equated in money,
however, the object remains to compensate in so far as the money
can compensate. Certain observations made by the Supreme
Court of India in R. D. Hattangadi are relevant in the context:
“10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant
who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on
account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this
background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain
and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a
lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the
physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by
courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation
payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to
compensate such injury “so far as money can compensate” because
it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or
personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered
physical frame.”
(xxv) Certain factors were also laid down for consideration in the
case of The Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs Mahadeva Shetty
And Anr Appeal (Civil) 5453 of 2003 further relied in the case of
Sidram (supra) for awarding compensation for pain and
suffering. The observations made in the aforesaid case as relevant
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 31 of 38
to the context are reproduced hereunder:
“113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as
observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts should be
mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes
physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep
mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant
trauma of the victim’s having to live in a world entirely different
from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with
degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal
choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge’s mind,
whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe
limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity
(which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right
to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving the
person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she
or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the
victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most
discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award
niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is
resultant affront to the injured victim. [See: Pappu Deo Yadav
(supra)](xxvi) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Suresh
(supra) observed as follows:
“2. … There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or
for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic
computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of
realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) stipulates that there should be grant
of “just compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of
law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor
a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance.”
But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of
the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of
compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question
whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must
provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of
suffering. Awards of compensation are not law’s doles. In a discourse
of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations
about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the
individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 32 of 38
dignity. (as relied in the case of Jagdish Vs. Mohan AIR 2018
SUPREME COURT 1347, by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India).
(xxvii) Injured suffered grievous injuries which led to 16%
permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb.
He must have suffered immense physical, mental and emotional
trauma for what he was compelled to undergo on account of
injuries sustained in the accident. There is no measure with the
court to quantify the pain and suffering of the injured, however,
an attempt is being made to compensate in terms of money for
the agony he must have suffered. Therefore, an amount of
Rs. 60,000/- is awarded to the injured against pain, suffering and
and trauma sustained in the accident.
(xxviii) Loss of amenities of life: It compensates the victim on
account of his inability to enjoy the basic amenities of life as any
other normal person can, taking into account the age and the
deprivation he would have to undergo and suffer due to injuries.
Considering the nature of injuries suffered by claimant, an
amount of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities.
32. The compensation awarded against pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damages under various heads is being sequentially put
in a tabulated form hereunder for ease of reference to all
concerned:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : As Rs. 52,894/-
discussed above.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : As Rs. 20,000/-
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 33 of 38
discussed above.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : As Rs.20,000/-
discussed above.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.20,000/-
(v) Loss of earning during the period of Rs.22,839/-
treatment:
(vi) Loss of Future Income Rs. 1,84,173/-
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(i) Damages for pain, suffering and Rs. 60,000/-
trauma on account of injuries:
(ii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 20,000/-
3 Total Compensation Rs.3,99,906/-
Deduction, if any, Nil
Total Compensation after deduction Rs.3,99,906/-
Interest As directed
below
33. It may be noted that in the judgment of Ram Charan &
Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., MAC Appeal no.
433/2013, decided on 18.10.2022 it was noted regarding rate of
interest:
“25 to evaluate the submission made by counsel for the
applicants, it is imperative to examine the guiding
principles for the grant of interest. In Abati Bezbaruah Vs.
Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148, the
following was held while interpreting section 171 of the
MV Act, 1988:-
Three decisions were cited before us by Mr. A. P.
Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant, in support of his contentions. No ratio
has been laid down in any of the decisions in regard
to the rate of interest and the rate of interest wasMACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 34 of 38
awarded on the amount of compensation as a matter
of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must be
just and reasonable depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and taking all relevant
factors including inflation, change of economy,
policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from
time to time, how long the case is pending,
permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity
of suffering, loss of future income, loss of
enjoyment of life etc. into consideration. No rate of
interest is fixed under Section 171 of the MV Act
1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by
Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court.
Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not
specifically plead for the same as it is consequential
in the eye of the law. Interest is compensation for
forbearance or detention of money and that interest
being awarded to a party only for being kept out of
the money which ought to have been paid to him.
No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of
interest be fixed to have a general application in
motor accident provision under Section 171 giving
discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In other
matters, awarding of interest depends upon the
statutory provisions mercantile usage and doctrine
of equity. Neither Sec. 34 CPC nor Sec. 4-A(3) of
Workmen’s Compensation Act are applicable in the
matter of fixing are of interest in a claim under the
Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the
interest at different rates depending upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my
opinion, there cannot be any hard and fast rule in
awarding interest and the award of interest is solely
on the discretion of the Tribunal of the High Court
as indicated above.”
34. Having regard to the prevailing rate of interest and the
judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, including in the
case of Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport decided on 27
July, 2020, Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 OF 2020 [Arising out
of SLP (C) Nos.8495-8496 of 2018], which is three Judges
Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, such interest @ 9%
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 35 of 38
per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present
case.
35. The total compensation shall be payable to the claimant
along with to simple interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of
DAR till actual realization of Award amount/compensation.
LIABILITY
36. Insurance Company has conceded valid and effective
Insurance Policy on the date of accident and has not raised any
statutory defence. It has already been held that accident occurred
on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. It
is settled that Insurance Company is responsible to indemnify
owner / insured for vicarious liability incurred by tort feaser.
Therefore, such principal award amount/compensation will be
payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with
simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition
till actual realization. (If there is any order regarding excluding
of interest for specific period same be complied at the time of
calculation of award amount).
37. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of
India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of
RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING, A/c
No. 00000042706870765 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR
code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir along with
calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioner.
Insurance company shall also furnish TDS certificate, if any to
the petitioner.
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 36 of 38
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO
THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
‘MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE’
(MCTAP).
38. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003
titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor
Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) which has been made
effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018
also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one
of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank
of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in
accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi.
APPORTIONMENT OF AMOUNT
39. Whole of award amount is released in favour of injured in
his bank account near his place of residence.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN
THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 04.09.2018
2 Name of injured Waseem
3 Age of the injured 21 years and 8 months
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 37 of 38
4 Occupation of the Not proved
injured
5 Income of the injured Rs. 7,613/- as per minimum
wages.
6 Nature injury Grievous injury and disability
7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization
9 Whether any permanent 8% permanent disability
disability?
40. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The
copy of award be also sent to the Ld. Secretary DLSA and
concerned criminal court.
Digitally
signed by
SHELLY
SHELLY ARORA
Announced in the open court ARORA Date:
2025.01.29
on 29.01.2025 16:42:01
+0530
Shelly Arora
PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket/Delhi
29.01.2025
MACT No.: 471/2021 Waseem Vs. Raju & ors. Page No. 38 of 38
[ad_1]
Source link